Timing: John Edwards Affair and His Candidacy

I just watched ABC's World News Tonight. It shows the interview with John Edwards without sound, using text overlay for some of his quotes. You'll have to watch Nightline to hear him in his own voice.

The interview does provide these dates:

  • Edwards says he met Rielle Hunter in 2006 -- after she was hired as a campaign videographer. The affair was in 2006.
  • He told Elizabeth about the affair in 2006. She was furious.
  • Edwards launched his presidential campaign in December, 2006.
  • The National Enquirer reported the affair in October, 2007, and Edwards denied it.
  • Edwards came in second in the Iowa caucuses in January, 2008 and dropped out a few weeks later.
  • The baby was born in Feb. 2008.
  • He denies being the father because the affair ended before Hunter would have conceived.
  • Edwards met with Hunter last month at the hotel in Beverly Hills to convince her to stay quiet about their affair. He doubts the authenticity of the Enquirer photograph showing him holding the child.


Edwards says he's paid Hunter nothing. But his campaign finance chair says without Edwards' knowledge or consent, he paid Hunter $114k. The AP reports the payments were made from Edwards' One America Committee beginning on July 5, 2006. She incorporated her company, Midline Groove Productions LLC , 5 days earlier in Delaware.

The last two payments to Hunter were totalled $14,461, and were made on April 1, 2007.

Update: Elizabeth Edwards has posted this diary today at Daily Kos. She asks for an end to the voyeurism of the media as they continue the repair work they began in 2006.

< Relevancy: John Edwards | Friday Night Open Thread: Forgiveness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I question the recent meeting (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:05:41 PM EST
    He's a former politician. If the affair really ended in 2006, before he told Elizabeth, why would he need to convince her to remain quiet now?

    It was that meeting that got this back into the headlines. Had he conducted the meeting over the telephone, he wouldn't be dealing with this today.


    Have you considered (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    he was set up by the Enquirer with Hunter's permission?

    They may have paid her to do it. She's living in a rented $3 million house in Santa Barbara. She only got $115k from Edwards' PAC.

    Perhaps she needed the money, they offered her big bucks to call him, threaten him with exposure, and convince him to meet her at a hotel in LA.

    Who knows what else the Enquirer has.Since California is a two party consent wiretap state, I doubt they recorded the phone calls between them about meeting or his reaction to her saying she would expose the affair. Nor would they be able to get taped footage of their meeting inside her hotel room.

    Mr. Edwards should be glad the meeting didn't take place in a one-party state where all of the above  could have been taped on her consent alone.


    Did consider that, but if she threatened (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    to expose him for the affair, wasn't it too little, too late?  Elizabeth already knew, and he said he was retiring from politics. Wouldn't such an act on her part be extortion?

    Absolutely, someone thought getting the Enquirer to the hotel at the time he was there (she lives in the area, so a hotel room should have been a red flag to him if she had threatened him).

    John should have come out of that hotel room and at the sight of the photographers instantly announced that he now understood why she called him there and exposed the trap...he's a skilled attorney and politician.


    But Elizabeth didn't know he was at the hotel..... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:29:12 PM EST
    Didn't suggest Elizabeth knew about the hotel (none / 0) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:36:42 PM EST
    meeting. But, if he had confronted the photographers with the reason he believed they were waiting for him, he wouldn't be as deep into the mess he's in at the moment.

    Yes, I understand, but what I was saying is the (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:38:28 PM EST
    reason he didn't do what he should have done was precisely because Elizabeth didn't know he was there.  He didn't want her to find out on the 10 o'clock news...

    He would have been able to justify his (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    being there to Elizabeth if he had taken the photographers head-on rather than hiding in a bathroom and calling for a security escort out.

    Well, he got caught off guard. And he hasn't been (none / 0) (#43)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:46:45 PM EST
    in the courtroom in a while so his skills may be a little rusty.  LOL  I think he was just so surprised that he acted like any of us would have acted - scared.

    Not sure, I haven't seen his interview. But I was (none / 0) (#37)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:44:03 PM EST
    thinking and said in an earlier post that he went there to ask her to not divulge the affair.  I think she was/is in love with him and possibly wanted to renew the relationship.  Maybe she just wanted money, maybe she wanted public affirmation, who knows?  Maybe he went because she wouldn't talk on the phone or through intermediaries.  She was holding all the cards on this one.  

    But the videos were done in 2006, no? (none / 0) (#84)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 02:02:40 AM EST
    Before he fully decided to run... ??

    Maybe the deal he had with Obama included (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    a cabinet position and he needed her to stay quiet until after November and his confirmation by the Senate.  Just speculating.  But I think he just wanted her to be quiet for the sake of his family.  And I can understand that she wanted to see him in person, that she is in love with him, and that she was trying to convince him to either renew their relationship or something of that nature.  Hence, the meeting.  

    The whole tragedy of this affair is that (none / 0) (#95)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    John Edwards knowingly went into the race and beat up the Clintons unmercifully.  He was disdainful of Bill and contemptuous of Hillary at every step of the way. He and Obama ganged up on her in every debate. What would have happened if Obama had to stand on his own in those debates without the smarmy and dishonest John Edwards helping him in his quest?

    Seriously, if the child is not his (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:15:34 PM EST
    the affair is over, why not just be out in front. If it's the other guys child, why not be more open if they were just meeting as friends or something. If it was an issue of her talking, why not use lawyers (aside from yourself) and by all means, skip shady late night meetings at a hotel.

    She needs some PR help (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Salt on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:19:34 PM EST
    she may feel like the victim but they appear to be misreading what's coming.

    A question re the "repair work?" (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:49:38 PM EST
    "She asks for an end to the voyeurism of the media as they continue the repair work they began in 2006."

    okay ----
    I read her post on dkos in order to find out WHY they decided after all that Edwards should run for President again in 2008. Why?

    And how did that "little piece of reality that changed the whole primaries and most likely everyone's future life" fit into their "repair work?"

    They just took two years off from trying to repair their marriage and are now back at that task? Amazing.

    just saying

    Are you thinking it was coordinated with (none / 0) (#50)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:03:02 PM EST
    someone to benefit Obama? I don't think I believe that since he waited so long to endorse him (and Elizabeth never did).

    No that's not what I was thinking actually (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:26:31 PM EST
    although everything is possible - Food for thought.

    re the endorsement well, Edwards endorsed Obama nonstop thruout the campaign simply by negatively attacking only Clinton's character and politics 24/7. Alone and with Obama.

    But in above post I just meant what I said. She is saying that they want to resume their repair work (on family and marriage, right?) started in 2006.

    But then just like that they put that on hold and campaigned for Dem nom again? That is a huge decision to make for them and the country.

    WHY did they make that decision after all they had been thru just then? Did they ever think what they were doing politically? The consequences their actions could have?

    And now it is back to "repair work?" Ok, it's just a statement for the public.
    But none of it makes any sense to me. I don't buy any of it.


    I agree (3.66 / 3) (#66)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:51:21 PM EST
    and think the country is better off without these two insipid narcissists angling for higher office. It's all about them, has always been about them. Notice how quickly on this supposedly traumatic day she cooks up a self-serving, woe-is-us diary over at her cheerleading section at dKos.

    obama and edwards likely (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by sancho on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:39:31 PM EST
    coordinated on withdrawing from michigan. in retrospect, it may be that edwards' biggest accomplishment was doing everything possibe to keep hillary from winning. the two boys beat the one girl by collaborating. what happens in iowa w/o edwards? even in south carolina, hilllary gets more votes. edwards knew he could not win, or if he was nominated he was toast, so i think it is fair to ask who benefitted from his running and who was hurt.

    and spare me the bit about edwards running on issues. he backed the guy with no meaningful health care plan, the fisa sellout, and the iffy choice candidate.


    Oh brother... (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    Sancho, I totally agree with you on this and have (none / 0) (#92)
    by BronxFem on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    mentioned it on 2or 3 previous comments.  Edwards candidacy really helped Obama's win.

    endorse (none / 0) (#75)
    by CHDmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:56:09 PM EST
    I want to know if THIS had anything to do with why Edwards endorse Obama when he did. At the time, it was very odd, that he (JE) had just spent the entire week end going on all the news shows saying he was not going to endorse either person any time soon and thought it was important for the voters to be heard. Then the next day or so he did an about face and endorsed right after the voters in WV spoke.

    Another blog I read wrote about (none / 0) (#96)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:09:12 PM EST
    the Edwards factor in Hillary's loss to Obama.  A very compelling story line.

    Who said they took two years off (none / 0) (#74)
    by joanneleon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:51:17 PM EST
    from repairing their marriage?

    sad, sleazy, (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by camellia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    shabby and sordid.  But not really any business of anyone but him and Elizabeth now that he isn't in the running for president or VP.  

    AG VP (none / 0) (#70)
    by jedimom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:24:33 PM EST
    I believe he was still in running  for the VP nod and certainly a cabinet position AG?....

    He recently said he would reconsider the VP (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 02:28:18 AM EST
    position if he was needed.  That was just before Nat'l Enquirer came out with the latest story.

    It was a big surprise, his change of mind, since he had given a strong negative earlier because 'been there, done that' was his first answer and a firm 'no'...

    Thinking back I remembered the emails a couple of us wrote each other on the night of New Hampshire, hoping upon hope that Hillary would lose badly so we wouldn't have to hear about her or about Bill in the general election.  I remember being so glad she placed below Edwards.

      But then I watched her debates and some of her long Q&A sessions (the kind that bored Dana Milbanks (sp?) when he was assigned to cover them, because one Q&A he wrote about and had a video of for WashPo went on for 2 hours or something, until people left) and I was impressed with her answers, her extreme interest in the issues themselves and her ability to talk verse and chapter on all of it with no halting to think or 'uh' etc.  VERY impressive.  How ironic that I'd wanted her to lose at the time.  I remember also that Andrea Mitchell is said by Huffpo types to be a Hillary supporter but my impression of Mitchell on the night of the surprise New Hampshire win was that she looked as if she were covering a funeral while the room was going crazy.


    My wife informs me (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
    that gossip is, in fact, not as bad as having an affair.

    I'm going to go with her judgment on this one.

    Well that depends on if (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by TruthSayer on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:29:50 PM EST
    you are the one gossiping or the one being gossiped about.

    From Elizabeth Edwards at dKos today:

    I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John's conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

    The 'public' would be you. The 'voyeurism' would be yours and others actions here.

    In other words you have no respect for Elizabeth's or John's privacy here and are just carrying on the work of the Enquirer. Classy.


    Don't you find it somewhat odd that (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM EST
    people who are asking the public to respect their privacy are posting on DK and giving interviews to TV about the subject?

    No (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by TruthSayer on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    Because the damn has broke and the Edwards' first choice of privacy has been violated by both the media and by the people on the blogs. Therefore they must go to the venues where they have been violated and appeal to peoples decency.

    Obviously that was an exercise in futility on their part because people just can't get enough of the voyeurism - as Elizabeth calls it.

    Instead of respecting a personal appeal from Elizabeth who the blogosphere was in love with 8 months ago you see them here and elsewhere more than willing to drag her and her family through the slop of gossip purely for their own entertainment - or voyeurism - as Elizabeth calls it.

    I guess voyeurism is in vogue today. And proud voyeurists they are. ;)


    Bingo. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:48:33 PM EST
    I'd really like to meet your wife. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:22:10 PM EST
    She is a sage.

    Elizabeth is asking for privacy... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Romberry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    OK, Elizabeth is asking for privacy...on the same night that John is appearing to give an interview about this on Nightline?

    I do understand her desire for privacy, but as I said at The Big Orange Ghetto, if privacy is what the Edwards family wants in this matter, perhaps the best thing to do is withdraw from public life for a while, lay low and stop talking about it. Where am I wrong on that?

    A little PR never hurts at times (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by denise k on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    like this.  They KNOW there won't be any privacy.  Her appeal is intended to guide the direction of the "narrative" that reporters seem to love so much.  If she says nothing, then people can only speculate about what she is thinking and tabloid speculation can only be worse than anything she says.  She has to say what she said.  

    I feel a little like the guy in the Britney YouTube video saying "leave them alone" but there it is.  We spend too much time worrying about other people's lives and not enough time about important stuff.  Edwards is done as a politician -- move along there is nothing more of importance to see here.

    Leave them Alone!


    At least Elizabeth had the good sense of not (none / 0) (#93)
    by BronxFem on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    appearing at her husband's side during the Nightline interview.  (Think of Spitzer's press conference and senator Craig's)

    Just got back from Elizabeth's diary over there (4.28 / 7) (#62)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    She is in a shocking state of denial combined with narcissistic hubris, just like her husband. They are peas in a pod.

    No clue as to the effect on his supporters of his deceit and her complicitness in it. Really gross, actually. I feel dirty just having read it, as well as the gushing, lemming-like love letters to her in the comments.

    ITA they are in total denial ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:07:31 PM EST
    ... it is unbelievable really

    those two statements tell it all.


    DNA exists (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST
    Use it.

    Just Wow. (none / 0) (#1)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:04:12 PM EST
    I really didn't like all the speculation about the Enquirer article and I said so here.  But now? Wow, just plain old wow.  

    Could someone tell me why my note was deleted? (none / 0) (#31)
    by andrys on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:40:22 PM EST
    I wrote the 2nd note to this article and said that Elizabeth had written a long note at Daily Kos and gave the link.

      I felt it should be read.  The link was SHORT and wouldn't have skewed the page.  I don't understand why it was deleted.

      Whatever was wrong, it seemed important that what Elizabeth wrote herself about this should be read.


    The diary you linked to is probably the (none / 0) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    same one in the post.

    Thanks, JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#83)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 01:59:30 AM EST
    It was below the fold and I was going too fast.  Thanks for the heads-up.  That works then.  I had been to Huff Post afterward and left a URL but it was THIS Url so they would have found it that way and also visited TalkLeft  :-)

    Help me out here (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:10:52 PM EST
    Was she or was she not paid for her video work? The ABC newscast I saw showed what I believe was her video footage. Was she volunteering or not?

    Seriously, there is nothing "wrong" with him hiring her and paying her if she actually did do work for him that can be documented.While I 'may' have a prob with the reported "inexperience" and what she made, if she has work to back it up . . . any money paid without billable hours/invoice/product from the campaign is a whole 'nother issue.


    her company was paid (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:16:22 PM EST
    for her video work. She made 4 videos and got $100k for them in 2006. She had never made videos before and set up her company 5 days before the payments started, according to the AP.

    Well, the first video I ever made (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    was with my assistant and for Hillary  ;) He was a film guy, but worked with me in print, product and licensing. Volunteer as it was for her org {blanking out on the name}. I can't believe that Edwards would have someone filming him for his campaign and not know the circumstances. Hillary would have no clue that I worked on her video as there was no contact and it wasn't about her and through the org. But I suspect if we needed to meet and film her, she would have known what was going on.

    I saw the video of Edwards and Hunter (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    on the plane.  They were discussing a speech that he hand-wrote.

    They were very, very flirty and playful with each other.  I find it hard to believe that nobody knew, considering their body language.


    Link for the videos? Please. And thanks. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    Thanks. It's been a long day and I wanted to take (none / 0) (#25)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM EST
    the easy way out. :)

    I think the guy who originally posted (none / 0) (#28)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:38:53 PM EST
    on Huff Post had a link (the rest have been scrubbed from the nets) about 10 days ago.  Edwards was acting like a schoolboy in front of the camera - quite frankly, like a jerk - but definitely playing to the person (Hunter) who was directing the conversation from off camera.

    The videos are back up on YouTube... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    (I'd post the link, but I'd be deleted...)

    I found them through Huffington Post - keep clicking on secondary/previously posted articles and you should be able to find them.

    The one I saw before was him on a Plane - it's there - he is really acting silly.


    Yes, Yahoo had at least 3 or 4 of them (none / 0) (#88)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 02:40:37 AM EST
    The trip to Africa was included.  The 4th is quite bad - in a cab on a way to his appearance on maybe the Daily Show.

      The plane one was interesting in some ways (including his obviously being flattered by the attention and flirting by talking about his great speech which was just a scrawled outline but he was proud of the fact he could give speeches from just an outline.  Also, it's probably a video that -would- have been a draw for the younger crowd and he was not the too-neat buttoned-up Edwards we tended to see.  I imagine that once the story was out, the videos were withdrawn pronto for what is somewhat evident.  

      I liked Edwards despite some obvious phoniness - I felt that behind all we see, his interest in the poor was sincere.  Hard to tell.  In the bios on tv I was intrigued that both Hillary and Barack were obviously idealistic in their youth and wanting to do big things from the start, and it's grim to me that in order to chase that dream they have to tap into the worst sides of themselves in order to attain that dream, politics and conflicting values being what they are when they need votes from everywhere.


    I deleted the links because someone (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:43:42 PM EST
    put them in and the urls are too long and skewed the site. Start here but don't post long urls in comments. thanks.

    I thought they were poorly done. Hated even the intro music. Who would have hired her?


    wow (none / 0) (#71)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:32:19 PM EST
    Those are very poorly done. It looks like a fanvid, not a professional campaign video. John, I would have made much better videos for much less money.  Sigh.

    They were amateur quality (none / 0) (#78)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:22:19 PM EST
    ...for a presidential candidate. They were a little too cutesy too.

    The more Elizabeth and he say about this and try to appear as victims, the more I am losing any compassion here.

    He lied. Both of them set up the party for more chaos and he fricken returned to see the woman on top of it. I can't get it out of my head him running away from that disgusting tabloid, locking himself in the men's room holding the door. What a soap opera.

    In my opinion, writing to Daily Kos is also silly.
    Why write to a blog and explain yourself? Just be quiet, go home and heal. Are there any grownups left in the Democratic Party?


    Links posted at Table Talk (none / 0) (#80)
    by Romberry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:27:40 PM EST
    You can find links to all four webisodes in this post at Salon's Table Talk.

    Yes - they were. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:36:29 PM EST
    Additionally, Elizabeth was in remission during the affair...I've heard that emotions, outlook, etc. can effect the health of a person fighting cancer.  (Can you imagine being told by your spouse that while you had breast cancer and treatment he was fooling around (what a stupid term) with another women.)  

    And in March, 2007, they announced the return of her illness.  


    I haven't seen the "final product" (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    videos, just some snippets on the MSM. The final product videos could/would validate the money paid.

    I freelance in the creative field. I have proof of billable hours and all the stages of the work I do, plus email communication on projects. If there is any question on billing, she should have that also. Even on project payments vs hourly billing, you cover you a$$ and keep records. Heck, the computer does it for you  ;) On a high profile job like this, I'd have everything dotted and crossed.


    not really intimate at all (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    did you see they weren't alone, arent' there two other young aides in the plane cabin? Watch the part about the shoes again.

    Also the videos were made in 2006, the year of the affair and the year the payments (all but $14k) were made. Edwards' finance guy says Edwards didn't know about the payments.


    I read that she received payment of about $114,000 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:15:58 PM EST
    for her video work.  This was paid by the campaign.

    It may be spliced and it (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:16:56 PM EST
    may not be her baby but "a baby" taken from somewhere else. That's what I interpreted him to say.

    Wouldn't the correct answer be... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    I've never seen or held Ms. Hunter's baby, so a photograph of that would be a fake.

    The baby is barely 5 months old now. He's not a complete fool. If he held her baby, would he have been dumb enough to let someone take a photo of that?

    It's his lame answers that are causing him so much trouble.


    I just came home from Safeway where I was able (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 02:17:03 AM EST
    to pull a copy up and check it out.  As seen even in the version online, in the first one his neck is wet as if he'd just been running and the inner shirt part (v-neck) is pulled down.

      In the other, fuzzy, shot, it is round and up closer to the chin and the sleeves seem a bit shorter.  Online it did not look like him but in the magazine it does.

      His answer was awful.  He either held a baby or not.

      Seems more as if it continues to be a serious relationship, as he didn't tell his wife he was going to meet her.  Meeting her with baby in the room and staying until 2:40am is too bizarre for blackmail though that's what I hoped it was at first.

      However, if he had promised it was over, that would account for his not telling her about this strange visit, during which he left the hotel together WITH her in view of doorman etc and they were gone a short bit -- and returned together.  It's all so weird.

      I'm mainly sorry that in our country, post-Republican-impeachment for a private affair inside the White House, which JFK had MANY of (and that's seriously documented by his own staff in books) has led to a situation where every candidate is supposed to be pure and I actually find it a bit unnatural to expect that.

      SADDER is that she was in remission at the time, he said, and thus it appears her cancer returned after she was told.  As one who has gone through cancer and the scariness of it and knowing how people are affected by stress even when healthy, it's all terrible.  That's where it counts.  BUT people's marital life should remain private.

      Me, even if he were a presidential candidate, I wouldn't care.  For me it doesn't go to 'character' but to normal human erring and it is just expected and normal in Europe.  As I said in another note, our worst presidents have been the ones who did not, from what we know, allow themselves that kind of outlet.  What a puritanical culture.

      I also think that if press sticks a microphone up to a candidate's face to insist on knowing whether or not they've had affairs with others, they should not answer - it's not our business.  It's not a requirement for the office to be pure.  If they asked Obama and he had something in his background, why should we even care ???

     Celebrity culture.  It's so similar - the focus is the gossip around their personal lives.   Unfortunately, Edwards' tendency to not be forthright has made it a MYSTERY story (psychological mystery for many of us) so now we're all talking about it even more


    I must add that if the pic with baby is real (none / 0) (#86)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 02:18:48 AM EST
    it was an inside job - meaning in that room, meaning with a cell phone, and taken by Hunter herself -- unless someone took it through a keyhole.  Those Nat'l Enquirer guys would no doubt have the whatever it takes to do that.

    I don't believe that he has stopped lying... (none / 0) (#13)
    by nulee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    this doesn't pass the smell test. This baby was clearly conceived within the 'standard deviation' of this affair.  If it wasn't his child he would have whopping incentive to produce the paternity test to ABC, but instead he's got the 'dog ate my homework' tall tales.  

    He's got to take that paternity test.  He's got a high horse about poverty but is ok with the public wondering if he abandoned a child he sired?  John, man, let's get this out in the open.

    Yes, the child could have been born (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    after less than nine months, let's remember.  Is he presuming it was full-term, does he know for sure, etc.

    We old women know about these things.  Usually the reverse in the past, of course, when couples married six or seven months had a remarkably high rate of preemies.  Nine-pound preemies.  Uh huh.


    Remember - full term is usually 40 (none / 0) (#40)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:45:34 PM EST
    weeks (almost 10 months).  I remember those last dreaded 4 weeks when I discovered that 9 months meant all the way through that 9th month.

    I know all too well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    about late babies.  And early ones.  Of course, most of the time, it's guesswork, anyway -- even wiht the so-called modern medical technologies (old wives' tales actually predicted mine best).

    But your medical math is a bit off.  And it doesn't affect my suggestion that it could have been a pregnancy of less than even nine months.


    He says the affair ended in '06 (none / 0) (#79)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:01:56 PM EST
    The baby wasn't born until February '08. If it's his, that is one heck of a late baby!

    Yep. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    I misread.  Thanks.

    Then again, there seems much is yet to be known.  Her family wants the DNA test.  That's not what he said. . . .


    Teebee (none / 0) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST
    This is not good.  MSNBC is moving on, Fox is moving on, but  CNN was pushing the Clinton's.  It looks like CNN is going to obsess over this tonight.  I am curious about Clinton's schedule and if she knew the announcement was coming out so she could work around this.  This is absolutely going to overshadow Clinton campaigning for Obama (they are not covering her campaign event at Green Valley) and impact the attempts at unity and it will overshadow the VP announcement.

    The only thing that will help is the media's adoration of Obama.  Hopefully they will obsess over it briefly and move on.  Crap, I forgot... the Sunday shows.  sigh.

    News item will drop off radar soon (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    In this media saturated world this event will be off the front page by Tuesday. And by next Friday it will be forgotten and back to the Democratic unity theme.
    Although, actually, the Olympics will probably overshadow that until the end of the month.
    However, I've seen enough of these BIG stories go away so quickly that I don't see this one being any different. Especially since Edwards is no longer an active politician. Now, if he speaks at the Convention it will bounce back. I hope he doesn't speak at the convention for that reason.

    Story not done (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:45:35 PM EST
    This is not going away.  The media will hound him until they get all of the details.  What was he doing there?  How is the mother and the apparent father supporting their lifestyles?  What were the circumstances that brought him there?  

    Two things that won't go away.... did he use campaign funds? and .. what are the results of the DNA test?  Doesn't matter if he isn't the parent... it won't go away until that is answered.

    Edwards was active.  He was listed repeatedly for a cabinet position.


    I agree. This is not going to go away in a long, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BronxFem on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    long time.  The bloviators on TV are STILL obsessing over Bill and Monica after all these years.

    What should help (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:06:18 PM EST
    and what I think is the most important statement is:

    "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic."

    That is what politicians (and we) should be cognizant of and on lookout for. It is this attitude borne of hearing your name chanted by crowds of thousands, and a belief that there is a separate set of rules; one for me and one for the rest of humanity. It is the sort of arrogance that leads Bush to believe that when he breaks laws, it isn't illegal. And it is the sort of arrogance that Obama displays when he goes back on his word and votes for telecom immunity, or tells half of the Democratic party that he can win without us and is so sure of his own infallibility that he doesn't even need to pretend that he cares about our issues.

    Politicians getting caught having affairs is so common it's beyond cliche. But a politician who acknowledges the true reason that it happened, and admits that narcissism and egocentrism got the best of him is truly impressive. I'll take John Edwards' mix of mistakes and ideals over the faux piety of certain other politicians any day of the week.


    Since we're asking questions (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    Are you really stupid enough to think that conclusion follows from my post?

    Truthsayer you are out of line (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:09:57 PM EST
    and suspended for insulting another commenter.

    perhaps I am old fashioned (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ford Prefect on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:19:11 AM EST
    although I am not old. But isnt this something for their family to sort out? particularly since Elizabeth did know about the affair and from what they say they are working through this. I just dont understand what all the fuss is about. If anyone should be hurt and upset it should be Elizabeth and the rest of their family. Hopefully she is healing from this and her other health issues.You have to admire this woman for her guts in facing this kind of stuff on top of her life threatening illness.

    But let me put my tin foil hat on (never a fan of these hats) and wonder about the timing of this info coming out. Who could be wanting to go public with this now? I really dont have an answer. I cant think of an angle in which the Obama camp wants to do this now as opposed to earlier in the process.

    Maybe I'm Naive (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:13:51 PM EST
    but I just didn't expect there to be so much fuss about this disclosure. Edward's affair and the possibility that he fathered an illegitimate child has been an open secret forever.

    I sent an email to a friend in January 2008, in which I dismiss Edwards as a viable candidate because "everyone knows about his affair/child and it will kill his candidacy if he is the nom."